◄►Bookmark◄❌►▲▼Toggle AllToC▲▼Add to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply

Search TextCase SensitiveExact WordsInclude Comments

List of Bookmarks

So the new President of the Fifth Republic is a cocaine-snorting, Bilderberg-attending, Rothschild bank-employed “outsider” and bisexual gigolo with offshore accounts in the Cayman Islands who believes there is no such as French culture (but let’s import infinity Moslems just to make sure).

We are reaching levels of globalism that shouldn’t even be possible!

***

Okay, first things first.

It is encouraging that Marine Le Pen increased the nationalist share of the vote up to ~35-36%.

If we are to interpret French electoral realities as a race between native French “uncuckening” and Afro-Islamic demographic growth, then Marine Le Pen’s doubling of the vote relative to her father’s 18% in 2002 represents a positive and encouraging trend.

In particular, a voter poll released just now by OpinionWay is extremely encouraging – an amazing 44% of 18-24 year olds said they had voted for Marine Le Pen, compared to just 20% of over 65 year olds.

This standards in positive contrast to a poll from the first round, which suggested that Le Pen’s support peaked at 29% in the 35-49 year old bracket, before declining to 21% amongst the youngest voters. It would also be a confirmation of polls from 2015 which indicated that support for the Front National increased monotonically as voters became younger.

This likely means that a majority of young native French voters are now nationalists – or at least open to it.

And amongst young French siloviks (policemen, soldiers, etc), of whom fully one half supported the FN even in 2015, nationalists must now be a dominant majority.

That said, there are several aspects in which this is a disappointing performance. Maybe they do not quite qualify as a #blackpill, but certainly there is good reason to break open the champagne. Unless you really like champagne just for its taste, I suppose.

(1) The FN has undergone great pains over the past decade to soften its image. This was a good step, and probably a necessary one, but what it also means that its approval should have increased anyway, all else equal.

(2) It comes against the background of the legitimacy crisis of the outgoing Hollande administration – the Socialist President took the unprecedented step of not even bothering to run for re-election – and of mounting crises with immigration and terrorism.

(3) She was running against a candidate whom one might view as the very embodiment of pozzed neoliberal globalism, whereas Chirac for all his faults was the last French President to retain some vestige of Gaullist sovereignism.

It’s also worth noting that despite his status as the consummate insider, Macron is as much of an “extremist” as Le Pen on some vectors of the political spectrum. For instance, while her economic program is remarkably statist by Economist-reading standards, it is actually pretty centrist in the context of a country where only about 30% of voters like the free market, while Macron is well to the right of most Frenchmen. Even on the question of immigration, while Le Pen might be at the “nationalist” end of the spectrum, Macron occupies its open borders opposite; in other words, he is every bit as much an extremist as Le Pen.

(4) Most critically, Le Pen has made no inroads whatsoever amongst the French elites – as I pointed out earlier, she got 4% of the vote in the first round in the 11th arrondissement of Paris that contains the Bataclan Theater, scene of the worst terrorist attack in Western Europe in the past decade. This was 1% point worse than her result there in 2012!

In the second round, the arrondissement of Bataclan gave Macron 92.7%. It would appear that the fine citizens of arrondissement 11 have accepted Macron’s matter-of-fact observation that terrorism will be part of their daily lives for the years to come – and have asked for moar.

Overall, as per the OpinionWay poll above, Macron had his highest result amongst the “intellectual professions,” amongst whom he got 83%, whereas Le Pen did best, at 63%, with workers. Of those French who voted from abroad, a stunning 89% supported Macron – they are, of course, some of the wealthiest and most educated French citizens.

As Christopher Caldwell points out in his article The French, Coming Apart, the native French have divided into their own versions of upper middle-class Belmont and lumpenprole Fishtown – the old money rentiers and “bourgeois bohemians” occupying the prestigious real estate in central Paris, while their immigrant allies of convenience drive French proles from the banlieues into “La France périphérique.”

And here we come to three big problems.

First, it is the first group – the “beneficiaries of globalization” – that have “100 percent” control of French culture – “from its universities to its television studios to its comedy clubs to (this being France) its government.” (Well, maybe not 100% – there are dissidents like Houellebecq and Zemmour and so forth, after all – but they pay the price of becoming unhandshakeworthy, and for the most uppity champions of La France périphérique, there are the hate speech laws).

Second problem: “Never have conditions been more favorable for deluding a class of fortunate people into thinking that they owe their privilege to being nicer, or smarter, or more honest, than everyone else.”

Third, and biggest, problem – which the article itself demonstrates in a splendidly meta way by omission (presumably, Caldwell wants to remain handshakeworthy) – is that said elites are correct to think themselves smarter than everyone else. They have, indeed, “come apart.” This can be confirmed by what we know about the tendency of high IQ people to form “cognitive clusters,” by what we can deduce from commonsense observation, and for that matter what we can extend from Charles Murray’s eponymous book.

Despite the massive structural violence that globalism inflicts upon La France périphérique, it is at the same time underpinned by cognitive meritocracy, the ultimate and logical endpoint of the Enlightenment.

Too bad that that the terminal stage of this march of progress is… Greater Lebanon.

Do you think high IQ white liberals will ever realize and feel regret for the demographic calamity they have inflicted on their own societies? Surely, when France is 90% Muslim and women can’t travel alone safely, they will understand what they have done. In any case, they are arguably the dumbest smart people in human history.

Do you think high IQ white liberals will ever realize and feel regret for the demographic calamity they have inflicted on their own societies?

I know people like that who have lived in all-white enclaves their entire lives and believe everything the media says. They genuinely believe reality is a looping version of "To Kill a Mocking Bird" where problems are always the fault of white people being racist. They will eventually find out what they've done but regret? I don't know. I'm trying to imagine how they'd react and all I can picture is them in catatonic shock cos for them to realize the truth would mean their entire view of reality shattering like waking up in the Matrix.

“Third, and biggest, problem – which the article itself demonstrates in a splendidly meta way by omission (presumably, Caldwell wants to remain handshakeworthy) – is that said elites are correct to think themselves smarter than everyone else. This can be confirmed by what we know about the geography of IQ, by what we can deduce from commonsense, and for that matter what we can extend from Charles Murray’s eponymous book.”

IQ, IQ, IQ, I’m getting damn sick of the term.

Okay, let’s concede what you are saying.

If two people meet on the street, argue, and it gets to the point of violence…

Does one person facepalm, and say “Duh, you are smarter than I am. You win,” then just walk away?

Does having a high IQ make you immune to bullets? Does the force protect you from the low IQ hick with the hunting rifle that happens to be a very good shot, who is camped out in some shrubbery a quarter mile from your house, waiting patiently (just like he did on all those fall mornings waiting for the deer to show up) because he is just too dumb to get bored, just for the chance to squeeze off three shots and scoot?

Want to say high IQ people control the media and the narrative? That they control the spigots of the welfare state, and no one is keen to see grandma lose her social security? That resistance is very hard to get off the ground, because everyone thinks it is unthinkable? That high IQ helps keep the machine turning?

I can buy that.

But you see, nothing like that works forever. Eventually, the wheel of time turns, and old things are new again. Then guys like Macron and investment bankers everywhere are welcomed to the “province of danger, physical suffering, and death,” and they meet some old acquaintances that decide to drop in for a visit, guys named “Shock, Firepower, and Mobility.”

Ok, you need a logistic chain for those three, but I’ve always liked the phrase.

Now tinfoil hat, got it. Nutcase calling for revolt. Whatever.

But things inevitably happen. And there will come a day when all you have are your friends and family, your tribe, your assabiyyah, and… your balls.

Once upon a time, British Elites were… let’s just say they were nothing like this bunch of elites.

If conditions change, if we have a phase shift where this machine can’t be kept running, if it gets too expensive, or if other countries quit honoring our imaginary funds we create from thin air…

You so sure they have the right skill set for what is coming? A place more like Mexico or post Yeltsin Russia than the current US?

expanding on this in a sense, Anatoly, why do you think "low IQ" groups like Scot-Irish, Highlanders, and Cavaliers seem more violent/supportive of force than Slavs(excluding marginal outgroups like Montengrins and Bosnians).

Revolutions happened previously and could happen again, and the top 1% can be definitely made to suffer. But in cases when it happened, the ordinary laborers and peasants suffered 100 times more. The 1% have connections and property abroad and could escape, unlike the "redneck", who will be left to face war, terror, famine and plague.
Ask Mr. Karlin how the Russian revolution looked like.

Does the force protect you from the low IQ hick with the hunting rifle that happens to be a very good shot,

Of course not. That's why you tell rifle boy that his problems are caused by a "clash of civilizations" with the Mooselims. Oh, and I happen to have an enlistment form handy, right here in my pocket.

But you see, nothing like that works forever.

Today, right now, the Yankee's army is chok-a-block full of the South's young men. Those young men don't even sort-of suspect that there is something odd about that.
Things like that can go on for a long, long time.

"Third, and biggest, problem – which the article itself demonstrates in a splendidly meta way by omission (presumably, Caldwell wants to remain handshakeworthy) – is that said elites are correct to think themselves smarter than everyone else. This can be confirmed by what we know about the geography of IQ, by what we can deduce from commonsense, and for that matter what we can extend from Charles Murray’s eponymous book."

IQ, IQ, IQ, I'm getting damn sick of the term.

Okay, let's concede what you are saying.

If two people meet on the street, argue, and it gets to the point of violence...

Does one person facepalm, and say "Duh, you are smarter than I am. You win," then just walk away?

Does having a high IQ make you immune to bullets? Does the force protect you from the low IQ hick with the hunting rifle that happens to be a very good shot, who is camped out in some shrubbery a quarter mile from your house, waiting patiently (just like he did on all those fall mornings waiting for the deer to show up) because he is just too dumb to get bored, just for the chance to squeeze off three shots and scoot?

Want to say high IQ people control the media and the narrative? That they control the spigots of the welfare state, and no one is keen to see grandma lose her social security? That resistance is very hard to get off the ground, because everyone thinks it is unthinkable? That high IQ helps keep the machine turning?

I can buy that.

But you see, nothing like that works forever. Eventually, the wheel of time turns, and old things are new again. Then guys like Macron and investment bankers everywhere are welcomed to the "province of danger, physical suffering, and death," and they meet some old acquaintances that decide to drop in for a visit, guys named "Shock, Firepower, and Mobility."

Ok, you need a logistic chain for those three, but I've always liked the phrase.

Now tinfoil hat, got it. Nutcase calling for revolt. Whatever.

But things inevitably happen. And there will come a day when all you have are your friends and family, your tribe, your assabiyyah, and... your balls.

Once upon a time, British Elites were... let's just say they were nothing like this bunch of elites.

If conditions change, if we have a phase shift where this machine can't be kept running, if it gets too expensive, or if other countries quit honoring our imaginary funds we create from thin air...

You so sure they have the right skill set for what is coming? A place more like Mexico or post Yeltsin Russia than the current US?

expanding on this in a sense, Anatoly, why do you think “low IQ” groups like Scot-Irish, Highlanders, and Cavaliers seem more violent/supportive of force than Slavs(excluding marginal outgroups like Montengrins and Bosnians).

The interpretation that 2017 was the “highest abstention/nonvote/blank-vote rate ever” is technically true, but even factoring this is, Macron actually has a comparable share-of-total-voters (43%) as Sarkozy 2007 (43%) and Hollande 2012 (39%).

Do you think high IQ white liberals will ever realize and feel regret for the demographic calamity they have inflicted on their own societies? Surely, when France is 90% Muslim and women can’t travel alone safely, they will understand what they have done. In any case, they are arguably the dumbest smart people in human history.

Do you think high IQ white liberals will ever realize and feel regret for the demographic calamity they have inflicted on their own societies?

I know people like that who have lived in all-white enclaves their entire lives and believe everything the media says. They genuinely believe reality is a looping version of “To Kill a Mocking Bird” where problems are always the fault of white people being racist. They will eventually find out what they’ve done but regret? I don’t know. I’m trying to imagine how they’d react and all I can picture is them in catatonic shock cos for them to realize the truth would mean their entire view of reality shattering like waking up in the Matrix.

it would have been better if this completely unnecessary calamity could have been avoided peacefully but at least young French people are mentally preparing for a fight – like the other side already are in the mosques

expanding on this in a sense, Anatoly, why do you think "low IQ" groups like Scot-Irish, Highlanders, and Cavaliers seem more violent/supportive of force than Slavs(excluding marginal outgroups like Montengrins and Bosnians).

why do you think “low IQ” groups like Scot-Irish, Highlanders, and Cavaliers seem more violent/supportive of force

Because they are just “smart enough” to see that force actually works quite well at times.

Muslims are surely more common in French schools than in French workplaces, so the young have had more exposure to diversity. But that can’t explain this entire phenomenon. Trump and Brexit voters skewed old, not young.

It would be interesting to find out whose children these are. The better schools must be less diverse, so young FN voters are probably working class and lower middle class kids. If they’re SWPLs’ and yuppies’ kids though, big changes are coming.

Do you think high IQ white liberals will ever realize and feel regret for the demographic calamity they have inflicted on their own societies? Surely, when France is 90% Muslim and women can’t travel alone safely, they will understand what they have done. In any case, they are arguably the dumbest smart people in human history.

It is always possible they will find a solution when they have to. But at the moment things are fine for them.

It is encouraging that Marine Le Pen increased the nationalist share of the vote up to ~35-36%….In particular, a voter poll released just now is extremely encouraging – an amazing 44% of 18-24 year olds said they had voted for Marine Le Pen, compared to just 20% of over 65 year olds.

I wouldn’t be too optimistic – both of these phenomena may reflect lower than usual voter turnout, with particularly low turnout among the young (a lot of the French version of young Bernie supporters refusing to vote for either candidate). This would boost Le Pen’s result but wouldn’t necessarily mean that she has become a lot more popular among the electorate in general and the young in particular.

expanding on this in a sense, Anatoly, why do you think "low IQ" groups like Scot-Irish, Highlanders, and Cavaliers seem more violent/supportive of force than Slavs(excluding marginal outgroups like Montengrins and Bosnians).

Eloi were dumb and childlike victims. High IQ groups are politically ruthless beneath the sweet veneer and friendliness. Sailer described the situation in CA, with the elite on the coasts maintaining their paradise while destroying the traditional way of life for the middle and working classes. After the urban riots of the 1960s more placid Mexicans were brought in, in large numbers. This decreased crime, kept the troublemakers in check, and provided cheap labor - all good for the coastal gentry whose sheltered way of life remained largely unchanged.

Apparently the high IQ groups of France do not yet consider the Muslim immigrants to be a significant problem for them. If they become so, a new group may be brought in. A flood of Ukrainians? Vietnamese? France will change further and become unrecognizable for the working class natives stuck outside the elites' sheltered regions but life will be good and relatively unchanged for the elites.

You can always count on the Jews to be even more against nationalism than the most self-hating white ethnic groups, like the French. Just wondering, did these people vote 96% against Israeli nationalism, too?

Yes, this is pretty disgraceful. Many of the French citizens in Israel are Jews who left France thanks to people like Macron.

OTOH, I will defend them, just a bit. Le Pen said she would cancel dual citizenship for countries outside Europe (including Israel). If I was an Israeli Jew with French citizenship with lingering ties to France, I might refrain from voting for her even if I was otherwise in agreement with her policies.

It is encouraging that Marine Le Pen increased the nationalist share of the vote up to ~35-36%....In particular, a voter poll released just now is extremely encouraging – an amazing 44% of 18-24 year olds said they had voted for Marine Le Pen, compared to just 20% of over 65 year olds.

I wouldn't be too optimistic - both of these phenomena may reflect lower than usual voter turnout, with particularly low turnout among the young (a lot of the French version of young Bernie supporters refusing to vote for either candidate). This would boost Le Pen's result but wouldn't necessarily mean that she has become a lot more popular among the electorate in general and the young in particular.

75% is not low and overrepresentation of the old boosted Macron, not MLP.

Turnout was 75% but 8% left the ballot blank and 3% spoiled the ballot, so only about 64% of voters, voted for one of the two candidates. This was the lowest since the 1960s.

overrepresentation of the old boosted Macron, not MLP.

I was discussing MLP's high support among the young, specifically. I suspect this was due to the young having particularly low turnout. All those young far-leftists refused to vote or left it blank, resulting in MLP's very high %.

Sorry to sound conspiratorial, I still think the most useful working theory is that the election was fair (inasmuch as it could be fair when 99% of the media is shilling for the other candidate, as has spent the past… few decades demonizing your party), but it’s not totally useless to think a little about other possibilities.

How do they estimate votes for nationalist candidates in polls? I know they massage the data a lot (like, they might adjust numbers for nonrespondents etc.), but if they are just reporting responses, then how is it even possible to have a nationalist candidate underperform her poll numbers? Are there really that many people who tell the pollsters they’d vote for a nationalist candidate but then don’t bother to show up, or, worse, vote for the mainstream candidate? Are there really that few people who don’t tell the pollster (or even give the name of the non-nationalist candidate), but then vote for the nationalist candidate anyway? Not impossible, but hard to believe.

I have always feared that when the establishment would start resorting to electoral fraud, it wouldn’t be detected because the polls would already show a suppressed number of nationalist voters. (And, interestingly, they now seem to underperform their poll numbers all over Europe.) Though in most cases (with the possible exception of the Austrian election) it’s hard to say why they would resort to such tactics (perhaps to demoralize? or to just try it out for next time when they might really need it?), but how can we exclude the possibility?

I think the vote figures are likely legit. The problem is that Le Pen severely underperformed in the debate, and her numbers were sinking fast after that. From a peak of 42% just before the debate to 38% on Friday, the last day of polling (and the first poll after the debate), it's not too much of a stretch to believe she fell to 34-35% on Sunday.

I don't take claims of large-scale electoral fraud (a few isolated cases are inevitable and are insignificant) seriously.

Why? Because if the authorities release detailed data, at the level of polling stastions, then electoral fraud is statistically very easy to detect through statistical methods.

Here are the various ways in which it is done in Russia: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/measuring-churovs-beard/

Essentially if you want to do electoral fraud you can do it in one of a few ways.

(1) Roving "carousels" of multiple voters - classic ballot-stuffing. Would be highly visible and easy to detect. Typical of some Third World semi-democracies.

(2) Adjusting figures upwards within the voting stations themselves during the counting period, e.g. after the local authorities (mayor; governor) have set you a "target" of 70%. This is what typically happens in Russia. Much less damning footage than with (1), and statistical arguments aren't typically considered by the courts. That said, people can still talk, plus this sort of interference is the most detectable through statistical methods, because polling station workers are lazy and would all round their figures to 70%, instead of "smudging" their results (64% here, 72% there, etc) for deniability. Russia has plenty of mathmo types, so this sort of interference is always detected. This would also apply to France and other 100 IQ countries.

(3) Conceal results from individual polling stations and just release them at the level of regions or even the entire country. This is what happens in fully authoritarian countries like Belarus. It is hard to imagine countries like France or the US going down that route.

31.5 million valid votes cast / 47.6 million registered voters = 66% 'turned out and cats a valid vote' rate. Of the other 34%, some stayed home; some turned out and cast 'blank' votes in protest. (Both rates historically high.)

Is 'registered' the same as 'eligible'? France's adult population (incl. overseas departments) is now around 52.5 million, suggesting the 47.6 million is all or nearly all the the eligible voters (adult citizens).

31.5 million valid votes cast / 47.6 million registered voters = 66% ‘turned out and cats a valid vote’ rate. Of the other 34%, some stayed home; some turned out and cast ‘blank’ votes in protest. (Both rates historically high.)

Is ‘registered’ the same as ‘eligible’? France’s adult population (incl. overseas departments) is now around 52.5 million, suggesting the 47.6 million is all or nearly all the the eligible voters (adult citizens).

Sorry to sound conspiratorial, I still think the most useful working theory is that the election was fair (inasmuch as it could be fair when 99% of the media is shilling for the other candidate, as has spent the past... few decades demonizing your party), but it's not totally useless to think a little about other possibilities.

How do they estimate votes for nationalist candidates in polls? I know they massage the data a lot (like, they might adjust numbers for nonrespondents etc.), but if they are just reporting responses, then how is it even possible to have a nationalist candidate underperform her poll numbers? Are there really that many people who tell the pollsters they'd vote for a nationalist candidate but then don't bother to show up, or, worse, vote for the mainstream candidate? Are there really that few people who don't tell the pollster (or even give the name of the non-nationalist candidate), but then vote for the nationalist candidate anyway? Not impossible, but hard to believe.

I have always feared that when the establishment would start resorting to electoral fraud, it wouldn't be detected because the polls would already show a suppressed number of nationalist voters. (And, interestingly, they now seem to underperform their poll numbers all over Europe.) Though in most cases (with the possible exception of the Austrian election) it's hard to say why they would resort to such tactics (perhaps to demoralize? or to just try it out for next time when they might really need it?), but how can we exclude the possibility?

I think the vote figures are likely legit. The problem is that Le Pen severely underperformed in the debate, and her numbers were sinking fast after that. From a peak of 42% just before the debate to 38% on Friday, the last day of polling (and the first poll after the debate), it’s not too much of a stretch to believe she fell to 34-35% on Sunday.

Not too worried by the vote numbers. They’re up again and will keep going up so long as the establishment globalists don’t address the underlying problems driving the support for parties of national survival like the NF, and they can’t address those problems because they are for the most part inherent in their core policies and ideologies.

The bigger worry is the suggestion by Le Pen that her response will be to “reform” the FN profoundly.

The danger is that the FN’s rise to power will be successfully dragged out long enough for it to be fully co-opted by the very same elites whose disastrous policies it exists to oppose.

Not so sure about this: If this is the case, the problem is that the French haven’t “come apart” enough. With the brexit vote, you had urban centres voting en-block to remain, but they didn’t have the numbers to counter the provinces voting 55-70% for brexit.

I’ve mentioned this on sailers thread, but i suspect the primary cause of this was economic. Pensioners get extremely generous, euro denominated government gibs. If fn got elected, dumped the euro and gave them their pensions in a reintroduced, devalued franc, they’d be seriously out of pocket. Uk pensioners’ gibs are paid in pound sterling, so the prospect of brexit didn’t scare them so much.

Muslims are surely more common in French schools than in French workplaces, so the young have had more exposure to diversity. But that can't explain this entire phenomenon. Trump and Brexit voters skewed old, not young.

It would be interesting to find out whose children these are. The better schools must be less diverse, so young FN voters are probably working class and lower middle class kids. If they're SWPLs' and yuppies' kids though, big changes are coming.

The better schools must be less diverse, so young FN voters are probably working class and lower middle class kids. If they’re SWPLs’ and yuppies’ kids though, big changes are coming.

I’m afraid the former is right.
The French abroad voted 89% for Macron. They experience some of the least diversity of all.

Young people in the West generally don’t want social conservatism, and they don’t want neoliberal economics. In that respect, Le Pen is much closer to their ideal profile than Trump.

Another interesting fact: More women (37%) than men (33%) supporter Le Pen – this is an inversion of the usual pattern for nationalists, including wrt Trump.

I suspect this is more due to Le Pen being economically left than being a woman. Women tend to vote more left, and Macron is a radical on economics by French standards,

"Another interesting fact: More women (37%) than men (33%) supporter Le Pen – this is an inversion of the usual pattern for nationalists, including wrt Trump."

Probably there is something wrong with your poll, another poll shows that more men than women voted for Le Pen. This, combined with the higher male support in the first round of the elections, combined with the higher male support in previous elections, combined with the fact that police and military voted overwhelmingly for Le Pen, makes the probability for more women voting for Le Pen highly unlikely.

You can always count on the Jews to be even more against nationalism than the most self-hating white ethnic groups, like the French. Just wondering, did these people vote 96% against Israeli nationalism, too?

https://twitter.com/helenelegal/status/861330404141391877

Yes, this is pretty disgraceful. Many of the French citizens in Israel are Jews who left France thanks to people like Macron.

OTOH, I will defend them, just a bit. Le Pen said she would cancel dual citizenship for countries outside Europe (including Israel). If I was an Israeli Jew with French citizenship with lingering ties to France, I might refrain from voting for her even if I was otherwise in agreement with her policies.

I would go further, the eruption of jubilation at the "defeat of antisemitism" (WTF?) has been totally disgusting. Nevertheless, I would add two points

1) 60% of French Israelis voted for Fillon in the first round, putting them well to the right of the French average. Essentially, they are against Islamic invasion, but against the FN way more. Neurosis is the best word.
2) Le Pen pledged to ban wearing a skullcap in public. First of all, why should French Jews stop doing something they have done for hundreds of years because of muh equality? Just ban Muslims stuff and be done. Secondly, at a certain point you have to recognize that if the people you are dealing with have a neurosis, that you don't stroke it.

Sorry to sound conspiratorial, I still think the most useful working theory is that the election was fair (inasmuch as it could be fair when 99% of the media is shilling for the other candidate, as has spent the past... few decades demonizing your party), but it's not totally useless to think a little about other possibilities.

How do they estimate votes for nationalist candidates in polls? I know they massage the data a lot (like, they might adjust numbers for nonrespondents etc.), but if they are just reporting responses, then how is it even possible to have a nationalist candidate underperform her poll numbers? Are there really that many people who tell the pollsters they'd vote for a nationalist candidate but then don't bother to show up, or, worse, vote for the mainstream candidate? Are there really that few people who don't tell the pollster (or even give the name of the non-nationalist candidate), but then vote for the nationalist candidate anyway? Not impossible, but hard to believe.

I have always feared that when the establishment would start resorting to electoral fraud, it wouldn't be detected because the polls would already show a suppressed number of nationalist voters. (And, interestingly, they now seem to underperform their poll numbers all over Europe.) Though in most cases (with the possible exception of the Austrian election) it's hard to say why they would resort to such tactics (perhaps to demoralize? or to just try it out for next time when they might really need it?), but how can we exclude the possibility?

I don’t take claims of large-scale electoral fraud (a few isolated cases are inevitable and are insignificant) seriously.

Why? Because if the authorities release detailed data, at the level of polling stastions, then electoral fraud is statistically very easy to detect through statistical methods.

Essentially if you want to do electoral fraud you can do it in one of a few ways.

(1) Roving “carousels” of multiple voters – classic ballot-stuffing. Would be highly visible and easy to detect. Typical of some Third World semi-democracies.

(2) Adjusting figures upwards within the voting stations themselves during the counting period, e.g. after the local authorities (mayor; governor) have set you a “target” of 70%. This is what typically happens in Russia. Much less damning footage than with (1), and statistical arguments aren’t typically considered by the courts. That said, people can still talk, plus this sort of interference is the most detectable through statistical methods, because polling station workers are lazy and would all round their figures to 70%, instead of “smudging” their results (64% here, 72% there, etc) for deniability. Russia has plenty of mathmo types, so this sort of interference is always detected. This would also apply to France and other 100 IQ countries.

(3) Conceal results from individual polling stations and just release them at the level of regions or even the entire country. This is what happens in fully authoritarian countries like Belarus. It is hard to imagine countries like France or the US going down that route.

If there's large scale electoral fraud, it could be done through the mailed in votes of people living abroad.

polling station workers are lazy

That's how they do it in Russia, where a few decades ago it was still a totalitarian dictatorship, and where they have never had really free elections. In a previously functioning Western democracy they might go about in a more professional way.

I don’t take claims of large-scale electoral fraud (a few isolated cases are inevitable and are insignificant) seriously.

There's a fourth case - which I've seen happen - where after sorted votes are bundled into stacks of 100 or so then some bundles get stashed behind radiators etc so they don't get counted.

This is done on an individual basis and under normal circumstances I'd day it's both minor and cancels out between parties but SJWs don't think it's immoral to do this with votes they consider far-right and with what is effectively mass media permission i generally assume it happens in every critical election to the tune of maybe 1-2%. I doubt it would be more than that.

iirc that's what happened in the first Austrian election when Hofer narrowly missed?

The media making a big thing about all the spoiled ballots points that way as well imo.

I don't take claims of large-scale electoral fraud (a few isolated cases are inevitable and are insignificant) seriously.

Why? Because if the authorities release detailed data, at the level of polling stastions, then electoral fraud is statistically very easy to detect through statistical methods.

Here are the various ways in which it is done in Russia: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/measuring-churovs-beard/

Essentially if you want to do electoral fraud you can do it in one of a few ways.

(1) Roving "carousels" of multiple voters - classic ballot-stuffing. Would be highly visible and easy to detect. Typical of some Third World semi-democracies.

(2) Adjusting figures upwards within the voting stations themselves during the counting period, e.g. after the local authorities (mayor; governor) have set you a "target" of 70%. This is what typically happens in Russia. Much less damning footage than with (1), and statistical arguments aren't typically considered by the courts. That said, people can still talk, plus this sort of interference is the most detectable through statistical methods, because polling station workers are lazy and would all round their figures to 70%, instead of "smudging" their results (64% here, 72% there, etc) for deniability. Russia has plenty of mathmo types, so this sort of interference is always detected. This would also apply to France and other 100 IQ countries.

(3) Conceal results from individual polling stations and just release them at the level of regions or even the entire country. This is what happens in fully authoritarian countries like Belarus. It is hard to imagine countries like France or the US going down that route.

If there’s large scale electoral fraud, it could be done through the mailed in votes of people living abroad.

polling station workers are lazy

That’s how they do it in Russia, where a few decades ago it was still a totalitarian dictatorship, and where they have never had really free elections. In a previously functioning Western democracy they might go about in a more professional way.

I don't take claims of large-scale electoral fraud (a few isolated cases are inevitable and are insignificant) seriously.

Why? Because if the authorities release detailed data, at the level of polling stastions, then electoral fraud is statistically very easy to detect through statistical methods.

Here are the various ways in which it is done in Russia: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/measuring-churovs-beard/

Essentially if you want to do electoral fraud you can do it in one of a few ways.

(1) Roving "carousels" of multiple voters - classic ballot-stuffing. Would be highly visible and easy to detect. Typical of some Third World semi-democracies.

(2) Adjusting figures upwards within the voting stations themselves during the counting period, e.g. after the local authorities (mayor; governor) have set you a "target" of 70%. This is what typically happens in Russia. Much less damning footage than with (1), and statistical arguments aren't typically considered by the courts. That said, people can still talk, plus this sort of interference is the most detectable through statistical methods, because polling station workers are lazy and would all round their figures to 70%, instead of "smudging" their results (64% here, 72% there, etc) for deniability. Russia has plenty of mathmo types, so this sort of interference is always detected. This would also apply to France and other 100 IQ countries.

(3) Conceal results from individual polling stations and just release them at the level of regions or even the entire country. This is what happens in fully authoritarian countries like Belarus. It is hard to imagine countries like France or the US going down that route.

Because if the authorities release detailed data, at the level of polling stastions, then electoral fraud is statistically very easy to detect through statistical methods.

Eloi were dumb and childlike victims. High IQ groups are politically ruthless beneath the sweet veneer and friendliness. Sailer described the situation in CA, with the elite on the coasts maintaining their paradise while destroying the traditional way of life for the middle and working classes. After the urban riots of the 1960s more placid Mexicans were brought in, in large numbers. This decreased crime, kept the troublemakers in check, and provided cheap labor – all good for the coastal gentry whose sheltered way of life remained largely unchanged.

Apparently the high IQ groups of France do not yet consider the Muslim immigrants to be a significant problem for them. If they become so, a new group may be brought in. A flood of Ukrainians? Vietnamese? France will change further and become unrecognizable for the working class natives stuck outside the elites’ sheltered regions but life will be good and relatively unchanged for the elites.

"Third, and biggest, problem – which the article itself demonstrates in a splendidly meta way by omission (presumably, Caldwell wants to remain handshakeworthy) – is that said elites are correct to think themselves smarter than everyone else. This can be confirmed by what we know about the geography of IQ, by what we can deduce from commonsense, and for that matter what we can extend from Charles Murray’s eponymous book."

IQ, IQ, IQ, I'm getting damn sick of the term.

Okay, let's concede what you are saying.

If two people meet on the street, argue, and it gets to the point of violence...

Does one person facepalm, and say "Duh, you are smarter than I am. You win," then just walk away?

Does having a high IQ make you immune to bullets? Does the force protect you from the low IQ hick with the hunting rifle that happens to be a very good shot, who is camped out in some shrubbery a quarter mile from your house, waiting patiently (just like he did on all those fall mornings waiting for the deer to show up) because he is just too dumb to get bored, just for the chance to squeeze off three shots and scoot?

Want to say high IQ people control the media and the narrative? That they control the spigots of the welfare state, and no one is keen to see grandma lose her social security? That resistance is very hard to get off the ground, because everyone thinks it is unthinkable? That high IQ helps keep the machine turning?

I can buy that.

But you see, nothing like that works forever. Eventually, the wheel of time turns, and old things are new again. Then guys like Macron and investment bankers everywhere are welcomed to the "province of danger, physical suffering, and death," and they meet some old acquaintances that decide to drop in for a visit, guys named "Shock, Firepower, and Mobility."

Ok, you need a logistic chain for those three, but I've always liked the phrase.

Now tinfoil hat, got it. Nutcase calling for revolt. Whatever.

But things inevitably happen. And there will come a day when all you have are your friends and family, your tribe, your assabiyyah, and... your balls.

Once upon a time, British Elites were... let's just say they were nothing like this bunch of elites.

If conditions change, if we have a phase shift where this machine can't be kept running, if it gets too expensive, or if other countries quit honoring our imaginary funds we create from thin air...

You so sure they have the right skill set for what is coming? A place more like Mexico or post Yeltsin Russia than the current US?

Revolutions happened previously and could happen again, and the top 1% can be definitely made to suffer. But in cases when it happened, the ordinary laborers and peasants suffered 100 times more. The 1% have connections and property abroad and could escape, unlike the “redneck”, who will be left to face war, terror, famine and plague.
Ask Mr. Karlin how the Russian revolution looked like.

On the other hand, the Russian revolution worked out for the working classes of most other European nations where frightened elites rushed to appease the working class. I'm not a fan but northern European Social Democracy was about as good for the working class as they're ever going to get and the fear of communism and the failure of fascism as an alternative created it.

Revolutions rarely worked out for the country in question but they can have wonderful effects on others. We just need someone to take one for the team...

The big thing going through my mind is a society "where the center cannot hold." In other words you may be an investment banker, but you have to have security guards because there is a real threat someone might snatch you or a family member for ransom. Or the police are really working for the local drug kingpin. Or you wake up one day and read that the trial for so and so is disrupted because someone killed the judge the night before.

Or those imaginary zeros in your bank account? Someone made those disappear and presumably reappear somewhere else. You'd push the issue, but your understanding is some very bad men might have made some guys at the bank an offer they couldn't refuse. And you might be one of those guys they find beside the road in a rural area with his hands tied behind his back and a bullet in the head if you pry too much.

Though if the welfare/social security stream ever quits, all bets are off. Heck if something made TV and the internet unavailable for some reason, all bets are off. Revolution in that case isn't unthinkable, but just saying other undesirable situations could become a reality besides that.

75% is not low and overrepresentation of the old boosted Macron, not MLP.

75% is not low

Turnout was 75% but 8% left the ballot blank and 3% spoiled the ballot, so only about 64% of voters, voted for one of the two candidates. This was the lowest since the 1960s.

overrepresentation of the old boosted Macron, not MLP.

I was discussing MLP’s high support among the young, specifically. I suspect this was due to the young having particularly low turnout. All those young far-leftists refused to vote or left it blank, resulting in MLP’s very high %.

Turnout was 75% but 8% left the ballot blank and 3% spoiled the ballot, so only about 64% of voters, voted for one of the two candidates. This was the lowest since the 1960s.

overrepresentation of the old boosted Macron, not MLP.

I was discussing MLP's high support among the young, specifically. I suspect this was due to the young having particularly low turnout. All those young far-leftists refused to vote or left it blank, resulting in MLP's very high %.

Turnout was 75% but 8% left the ballot blank and 3% spoiled the ballot, so only about 64% of voters, voted for one of the two candidates. This was the lowest since the 1960s.

So if MLP got 34% of the 64% who actually chose a candidate, she got only about 29% of the vote of people who went to the ballot box. It’s less than an 8% improvement over the first round.

Was there an honest count? If so the French have what they want. What we have learned from the American election is elections don’t change anything anyway. If the French would remain French they will have to bring back the guillotine.

Revolutions happened previously and could happen again, and the top 1% can be definitely made to suffer. But in cases when it happened, the ordinary laborers and peasants suffered 100 times more. The 1% have connections and property abroad and could escape, unlike the "redneck", who will be left to face war, terror, famine and plague.
Ask Mr. Karlin how the Russian revolution looked like.

On the other hand, the Russian revolution worked out for the working classes of most other European nations where frightened elites rushed to appease the working class. I’m not a fan but northern European Social Democracy was about as good for the working class as they’re ever going to get and the fear of communism and the failure of fascism as an alternative created it.

Revolutions rarely worked out for the country in question but they can have wonderful effects on others. We just need someone to take one for the team…

Yes, this is pretty disgraceful. Many of the French citizens in Israel are Jews who left France thanks to people like Macron.

OTOH, I will defend them, just a bit. Le Pen said she would cancel dual citizenship for countries outside Europe (including Israel). If I was an Israeli Jew with French citizenship with lingering ties to France, I might refrain from voting for her even if I was otherwise in agreement with her policies.

I would go further, the eruption of jubilation at the “defeat of antisemitism” (WTF?) has been totally disgusting. Nevertheless, I would add two points

1) 60% of French Israelis voted for Fillon in the first round, putting them well to the right of the French average. Essentially, they are against Islamic invasion, but against the FN way more. Neurosis is the best word.
2) Le Pen pledged to ban wearing a skullcap in public. First of all, why should French Jews stop doing something they have done for hundreds of years because of muh equality? Just ban Muslims stuff and be done. Secondly, at a certain point you have to recognize that if the people you are dealing with have a neurosis, that you don’t stroke it.

I suspect this is more due to Le Pen being economically left than being a woman. Women tend to vote more left, and Macron is a radical on economics by French standards,

This is true to some extent, but it’s worth pointing out that back when the left was actually really left on economics (i.e. Communist or hardline socialist), women favoured conservative parties.

As a political statistician friend of mine puts it, women have a strong aversion to ‘things that seem mean’. When left wing parties in the west were about class struggle and overthrowing rich people, they were favoured by men, now that center left parties are about diversity and inclusion they’re favoured by women.

It’s encouraging to see that Le Pen reverses that trend though. There’s nothing about immigration restriction or wanting to preserve distinct ethnic groups that has to involve ‘meanness’, especially if it’s coupled with heavy increases in foreign aid.

I don't take claims of large-scale electoral fraud (a few isolated cases are inevitable and are insignificant) seriously.

Why? Because if the authorities release detailed data, at the level of polling stastions, then electoral fraud is statistically very easy to detect through statistical methods.

Here are the various ways in which it is done in Russia: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/measuring-churovs-beard/

Essentially if you want to do electoral fraud you can do it in one of a few ways.

(1) Roving "carousels" of multiple voters - classic ballot-stuffing. Would be highly visible and easy to detect. Typical of some Third World semi-democracies.

(2) Adjusting figures upwards within the voting stations themselves during the counting period, e.g. after the local authorities (mayor; governor) have set you a "target" of 70%. This is what typically happens in Russia. Much less damning footage than with (1), and statistical arguments aren't typically considered by the courts. That said, people can still talk, plus this sort of interference is the most detectable through statistical methods, because polling station workers are lazy and would all round their figures to 70%, instead of "smudging" their results (64% here, 72% there, etc) for deniability. Russia has plenty of mathmo types, so this sort of interference is always detected. This would also apply to France and other 100 IQ countries.

(3) Conceal results from individual polling stations and just release them at the level of regions or even the entire country. This is what happens in fully authoritarian countries like Belarus. It is hard to imagine countries like France or the US going down that route.

I don’t take claims of large-scale electoral fraud (a few isolated cases are inevitable and are insignificant) seriously.

There’s a fourth case – which I’ve seen happen – where after sorted votes are bundled into stacks of 100 or so then some bundles get stashed behind radiators etc so they don’t get counted.

This is done on an individual basis and under normal circumstances I’d day it’s both minor and cancels out between parties but SJWs don’t think it’s immoral to do this with votes they consider far-right and with what is effectively mass media permission i generally assume it happens in every critical election to the tune of maybe 1-2%. I doubt it would be more than that.

iirc that’s what happened in the first Austrian election when Hofer narrowly missed?

The media making a big thing about all the spoiled ballots points that way as well imo.

On the other hand, the Russian revolution worked out for the working classes of most other European nations where frightened elites rushed to appease the working class. I'm not a fan but northern European Social Democracy was about as good for the working class as they're ever going to get and the fear of communism and the failure of fascism as an alternative created it.

Revolutions rarely worked out for the country in question but they can have wonderful effects on others. We just need someone to take one for the team...

On the other hand, the Russian revolution worked out for the working classes of most other European nations where frightened elites rushed to appease the working class.

Yes, and went into reverse (neo-liberalism) after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

I would go further, the eruption of jubilation at the "defeat of antisemitism" (WTF?) has been totally disgusting. Nevertheless, I would add two points

1) 60% of French Israelis voted for Fillon in the first round, putting them well to the right of the French average. Essentially, they are against Islamic invasion, but against the FN way more. Neurosis is the best word.
2) Le Pen pledged to ban wearing a skullcap in public. First of all, why should French Jews stop doing something they have done for hundreds of years because of muh equality? Just ban Muslims stuff and be done. Secondly, at a certain point you have to recognize that if the people you are dealing with have a neurosis, that you don't stroke it.

Okay, these are actually valid points.

Though please note that wearing crosses is also illegal in places like French schools. I think Le Pen would actually get into trouble if she proposed something discriminatory.

There's definitely a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't problem, but I think Le Pen played a bad hand badly.

Banning religious symbols is absolutely the stupidest way possible to oppose demographic change. Even a non egalitarian ban targeted at Muslims would be pointless and dumb. The burka is pretty extreme, but a hijab is fine, even praiseworthy. The point is not to get Algerians to start wearing jeggings anyway, but to get them to go live in Algeria. It's also not like she gained any cred with feminists or secularists for her stance. In sum, there are many causes for which it would be worth it to piss off the Jews, but muh women's right to show some skin ain't one of them.

Revolutions happened previously and could happen again, and the top 1% can be definitely made to suffer. But in cases when it happened, the ordinary laborers and peasants suffered 100 times more. The 1% have connections and property abroad and could escape, unlike the "redneck", who will be left to face war, terror, famine and plague.
Ask Mr. Karlin how the Russian revolution looked like.

There are other things besides revolutions.

The big thing going through my mind is a society “where the center cannot hold.” In other words you may be an investment banker, but you have to have security guards because there is a real threat someone might snatch you or a family member for ransom. Or the police are really working for the local drug kingpin. Or you wake up one day and read that the trial for so and so is disrupted because someone killed the judge the night before.

Or those imaginary zeros in your bank account? Someone made those disappear and presumably reappear somewhere else. You’d push the issue, but your understanding is some very bad men might have made some guys at the bank an offer they couldn’t refuse. And you might be one of those guys they find beside the road in a rural area with his hands tied behind his back and a bullet in the head if you pry too much.

Though if the welfare/social security stream ever quits, all bets are off. Heck if something made TV and the internet unavailable for some reason, all bets are off. Revolution in that case isn’t unthinkable, but just saying other undesirable situations could become a reality besides that.

"Third, and biggest, problem – which the article itself demonstrates in a splendidly meta way by omission (presumably, Caldwell wants to remain handshakeworthy) – is that said elites are correct to think themselves smarter than everyone else. This can be confirmed by what we know about the geography of IQ, by what we can deduce from commonsense, and for that matter what we can extend from Charles Murray’s eponymous book."

IQ, IQ, IQ, I'm getting damn sick of the term.

Okay, let's concede what you are saying.

If two people meet on the street, argue, and it gets to the point of violence...

Does one person facepalm, and say "Duh, you are smarter than I am. You win," then just walk away?

Does having a high IQ make you immune to bullets? Does the force protect you from the low IQ hick with the hunting rifle that happens to be a very good shot, who is camped out in some shrubbery a quarter mile from your house, waiting patiently (just like he did on all those fall mornings waiting for the deer to show up) because he is just too dumb to get bored, just for the chance to squeeze off three shots and scoot?

Want to say high IQ people control the media and the narrative? That they control the spigots of the welfare state, and no one is keen to see grandma lose her social security? That resistance is very hard to get off the ground, because everyone thinks it is unthinkable? That high IQ helps keep the machine turning?

I can buy that.

But you see, nothing like that works forever. Eventually, the wheel of time turns, and old things are new again. Then guys like Macron and investment bankers everywhere are welcomed to the "province of danger, physical suffering, and death," and they meet some old acquaintances that decide to drop in for a visit, guys named "Shock, Firepower, and Mobility."

Ok, you need a logistic chain for those three, but I've always liked the phrase.

Now tinfoil hat, got it. Nutcase calling for revolt. Whatever.

But things inevitably happen. And there will come a day when all you have are your friends and family, your tribe, your assabiyyah, and... your balls.

Once upon a time, British Elites were... let's just say they were nothing like this bunch of elites.

If conditions change, if we have a phase shift where this machine can't be kept running, if it gets too expensive, or if other countries quit honoring our imaginary funds we create from thin air...

You so sure they have the right skill set for what is coming? A place more like Mexico or post Yeltsin Russia than the current US?

Does the force protect you from the low IQ hick with the hunting rifle that happens to be a very good shot,

Of course not. That’s why you tell rifle boy that his problems are caused by a “clash of civilizations” with the Mooselims. Oh, and I happen to have an enlistment form handy, right here in my pocket.

But you see, nothing like that works forever.

Today, right now, the Yankee’s army is chok-a-block full of the South’s young men. Those young men don’t even sort-of suspect that there is something odd about that.
Things like that can go on for a long, long time.

I suspect this is more due to Le Pen being economically left than being a woman. Women tend to vote more left, and Macron is a radical on economics by French standards,

This is true to some extent, but it's worth pointing out that back when the left was actually really left on economics (i.e. Communist or hardline socialist), women favoured conservative parties.

As a political statistician friend of mine puts it, women have a strong aversion to 'things that seem mean'. When left wing parties in the west were about class struggle and overthrowing rich people, they were favoured by men, now that center left parties are about diversity and inclusion they're favoured by women.

It's encouraging to see that Le Pen reverses that trend though. There's nothing about immigration restriction or wanting to preserve distinct ethnic groups that has to involve 'meanness', especially if it's coupled with heavy increases in foreign aid.

It’s simpler than that. Women used to be considerably more religious than men, and voting – especially in France – was then for or against the Catholic Church more than anything else.

The obvious is that MLP did not actually do very well. Voter turnout was 75%, and she got only 29% of those votes, with Macron getting about 56% of those votes and the rest going t0 blank ballot protests.

She did certainly improve over her father's 16.8% among people who went to the polls, but it's still a very weak result, fewer than a third of the people who went to the polls voted for her.

I would go further, the eruption of jubilation at the "defeat of antisemitism" (WTF?) has been totally disgusting. Nevertheless, I would add two points

1) 60% of French Israelis voted for Fillon in the first round, putting them well to the right of the French average. Essentially, they are against Islamic invasion, but against the FN way more. Neurosis is the best word.
2) Le Pen pledged to ban wearing a skullcap in public. First of all, why should French Jews stop doing something they have done for hundreds of years because of muh equality? Just ban Muslims stuff and be done. Secondly, at a certain point you have to recognize that if the people you are dealing with have a neurosis, that you don't stroke it.

Just ban Muslims stuff and be done. Secondly, at a certain point you have to recognize that if the people you are dealing with have a neurosis, that you don’t stroke it.

It’s interesting to think about what’s going on in a mind which can write these two sentences right next to each other.

You have a talent for pettifogging to obscure the obvious. I bet you're a lawyer by profession.

The obvious is that MLP did not actually do very well. Voter turnout was 75%, and she got only 29% of those votes, with Macron getting about 56% of those votes and the rest going t0 blank ballot protests.

She did certainly improve over her father’s 16.8% among people who went to the polls, but it’s still a very weak result, fewer than a third of the people who went to the polls voted for her.

Yes, it's even worse because of the lower turnout. Given how she has already watered down her message and the situation got much much worse in France (based on my personal experience Paris got visibly enriched 2004-2014), it's not a lot.

I wonder how much it helped to water down her message. Maybe it didn't.

Though please note that wearing crosses is also illegal in places like French schools. I think Le Pen would actually get into trouble if she proposed something discriminatory.

There’s definitely a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t problem, but I think Le Pen played a bad hand badly.

Banning religious symbols is absolutely the stupidest way possible to oppose demographic change. Even a non egalitarian ban targeted at Muslims would be pointless and dumb. The burka is pretty extreme, but a hijab is fine, even praiseworthy. The point is not to get Algerians to start wearing jeggings anyway, but to get them to go live in Algeria. It’s also not like she gained any cred with feminists or secularists for her stance. In sum, there are many causes for which it would be worth it to piss off the Jews, but muh women’s right to show some skin ain’t one of them.

Even a non egalitarian ban targeted at Muslims would be pointless and dumb. The burka is pretty extreme, but a hijab is fine, even praiseworthy.

I don't think a hijab is praiseworthy (in fact I find it pretty sickening), but when politicians come up with proposals to prohibib Islamic garb, I always wonder "How would that be enforced"? No one can tell me they would actually put Muslim women in jail for ignoring such a ban (and fines would probably just be paid by Islamic communal organizations). Such proposals are fundamentally silly, a diversionary tactic and a way for politicians to be seen as "doing something", when in fact nothing changes at all.

The obvious is that MLP did not actually do very well. Voter turnout was 75%, and she got only 29% of those votes, with Macron getting about 56% of those votes and the rest going t0 blank ballot protests.

She did certainly improve over her father's 16.8% among people who went to the polls, but it's still a very weak result, fewer than a third of the people who went to the polls voted for her.

A performing seal could have improved on the performance of JMLP (given his flirtation with Holocaust denial, etc.), so marine’s performance was really disappointing relative to expectations.

There's definitely a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't problem, but I think Le Pen played a bad hand badly.

Banning religious symbols is absolutely the stupidest way possible to oppose demographic change. Even a non egalitarian ban targeted at Muslims would be pointless and dumb. The burka is pretty extreme, but a hijab is fine, even praiseworthy. The point is not to get Algerians to start wearing jeggings anyway, but to get them to go live in Algeria. It's also not like she gained any cred with feminists or secularists for her stance. In sum, there are many causes for which it would be worth it to piss off the Jews, but muh women's right to show some skin ain't one of them.

Even a non egalitarian ban targeted at Muslims would be pointless and dumb. The burka is pretty extreme, but a hijab is fine, even praiseworthy.

I don’t think a hijab is praiseworthy (in fact I find it pretty sickening), but when politicians come up with proposals to prohibib Islamic garb, I always wonder “How would that be enforced”? No one can tell me they would actually put Muslim women in jail for ignoring such a ban (and fines would probably just be paid by Islamic communal organizations). Such proposals are fundamentally silly, a diversionary tactic and a way for politicians to be seen as “doing something”, when in fact nothing changes at all.

And as I wrote elsewhere, seeing many burqas is actually a great redpill. Gabriel is correct, the goal is not to make the Algerian women wear miniskirts (my impression is that many Muslim women have little problem with jeggings, as long as the hair is covered... as if they deliberately missed the point of Islamic dress restrictions), but to make them live elsewhere.

I agree with you, bans on the hijab and so forth fundamentally miss the point.

The issue is as much about ethnicity as culture, not all that many women wear the hijab anyway, and banning the headscarf is a dumb symbolic gesture that punishes these women unfairly and doesn't actually solve the main problem (mass immigration).

Even a non egalitarian ban targeted at Muslims would be pointless and dumb. The burka is pretty extreme, but a hijab is fine, even praiseworthy.

I don't think a hijab is praiseworthy (in fact I find it pretty sickening), but when politicians come up with proposals to prohibib Islamic garb, I always wonder "How would that be enforced"? No one can tell me they would actually put Muslim women in jail for ignoring such a ban (and fines would probably just be paid by Islamic communal organizations). Such proposals are fundamentally silly, a diversionary tactic and a way for politicians to be seen as "doing something", when in fact nothing changes at all.

And as I wrote elsewhere, seeing many burqas is actually a great redpill. Gabriel is correct, the goal is not to make the Algerian women wear miniskirts (my impression is that many Muslim women have little problem with jeggings, as long as the hair is covered… as if they deliberately missed the point of Islamic dress restrictions), but to make them live elsewhere.

I'm not sure that's realistic, though of course I understand where you're coming from. But that stupid talk of banning Islamic garb totally misses the point. If you don't want any more Islamization, stop further immigration of Muslims (and redesign the welfare system in a way that makes large families for underclass Muslims not profitable anymore). Proposals for dress restrictions actually play a really insidious role in this regard: they allow politicians to pretend Muslim mass immigration is possible without Islamization, it's just a matter of stating some rules ("you can't wear that!"), and then people will see the superiority of the western way of doing things and assimilate. Just idiotic.

And as I wrote elsewhere, seeing many burqas is actually a great redpill. Gabriel is correct, the goal is not to make the Algerian women wear miniskirts (my impression is that many Muslim women have little problem with jeggings, as long as the hair is covered... as if they deliberately missed the point of Islamic dress restrictions), but to make them live elsewhere.

but to make them live elsewhere.

I’m not sure that’s realistic, though of course I understand where you’re coming from. But that stupid talk of banning Islamic garb totally misses the point. If you don’t want any more Islamization, stop further immigration of Muslims (and redesign the welfare system in a way that makes large families for underclass Muslims not profitable anymore). Proposals for dress restrictions actually play a really insidious role in this regard: they allow politicians to pretend Muslim mass immigration is possible without Islamization, it’s just a matter of stating some rules (“you can’t wear that!”), and then people will see the superiority of the western way of doing things and assimilate. Just idiotic.

Even a non egalitarian ban targeted at Muslims would be pointless and dumb. The burka is pretty extreme, but a hijab is fine, even praiseworthy.

I don't think a hijab is praiseworthy (in fact I find it pretty sickening), but when politicians come up with proposals to prohibib Islamic garb, I always wonder "How would that be enforced"? No one can tell me they would actually put Muslim women in jail for ignoring such a ban (and fines would probably just be paid by Islamic communal organizations). Such proposals are fundamentally silly, a diversionary tactic and a way for politicians to be seen as "doing something", when in fact nothing changes at all.

I don’t think a hijab is praiseworthy (in fact I find it pretty sickening)

I'm not sure that's realistic, though of course I understand where you're coming from. But that stupid talk of banning Islamic garb totally misses the point. If you don't want any more Islamization, stop further immigration of Muslims (and redesign the welfare system in a way that makes large families for underclass Muslims not profitable anymore). Proposals for dress restrictions actually play a really insidious role in this regard: they allow politicians to pretend Muslim mass immigration is possible without Islamization, it's just a matter of stating some rules ("you can't wear that!"), and then people will see the superiority of the western way of doing things and assimilate. Just idiotic.

stop further immigration of Muslims (and redesign the welfare system in a way that makes large families for underclass Muslims not profitable anymore)

The obvious is that MLP did not actually do very well. Voter turnout was 75%, and she got only 29% of those votes, with Macron getting about 56% of those votes and the rest going t0 blank ballot protests.

She did certainly improve over her father's 16.8% among people who went to the polls, but it's still a very weak result, fewer than a third of the people who went to the polls voted for her.

I'd check this demographic group's voter turnout before being optimistic. I haven't seen data about turnout by age. In the first round a lot of the young voted for the far left and few for centrists; the leftist voters may have stayed home, leaving MLP supporters over-represented.

Le Pen didn't get 44% of under 24s. She got 44% of the (unknown, but probably low) under 24s who bothered to vote and didn't cast a blank vote in protest against both candidates.

Now you might think that the rest (those who didn't bother to show up, and those who did bother to show up but only to vote against both Macron and Le Pen) will later grow up to be 44% Le Pen voters, but that's not how it works. (In fact, it's highly unlikely that Le Pen already has in the bag 44% of those who cast blank votes. Because they are politically active to the point of bothering to go to the voting booth only to cast blank votes, they will probably vote for someone eventually - and that someone is unlikely to be Macron or Le Pen.) Normies (including middle class normies) often reject politics altogether when they are young, but it doesn't mean that they will grow up to be Le Pen supporters later - they also reject nationalism. It was taught to them at school that "far right" was a bad, bad thing, and they have no reason to reassess that knowledge. (Except young people already living in enriched environments. But here's the catch - they are already voting Le Pen.) They will either grow up to vote for normie parties (maybe a normie party repackaged as a maverick outsider like Macron), or if they won't, they might just as well vote for far left parties. In the first round, the far left was apparently more popular among them than the far right. (Though maybe only because of the diverse.)

Now I also hope that they will eventually vote nationalist (maybe not Le Pen but someone else, later), I even hope that those who voted Macron this time will become redpilled over the next few years, but fate, unfortunately, doesn't always work based on my feelings and wishes, so we need to work hard to find out what is out there, and devise our strategies based on reality and not wishful thinking.

Even a non egalitarian ban targeted at Muslims would be pointless and dumb. The burka is pretty extreme, but a hijab is fine, even praiseworthy.

I don't think a hijab is praiseworthy (in fact I find it pretty sickening), but when politicians come up with proposals to prohibib Islamic garb, I always wonder "How would that be enforced"? No one can tell me they would actually put Muslim women in jail for ignoring such a ban (and fines would probably just be paid by Islamic communal organizations). Such proposals are fundamentally silly, a diversionary tactic and a way for politicians to be seen as "doing something", when in fact nothing changes at all.

I agree with you, bans on the hijab and so forth fundamentally miss the point.

The issue is as much about ethnicity as culture, not all that many women wear the hijab anyway, and banning the headscarf is a dumb symbolic gesture that punishes these women unfairly and doesn’t actually solve the main problem (mass immigration).

Yes, but even if it were just about culture, ideology etc., banning its outward manifestations would merely be fighting against symptoms. You can't ban beliefs or thoughts. And as I wrote above, such a ban probably couldn't be enforced anyway. If it were enforced though with some sort of punishment for those ignoring it, it would create a lot of "martyrs" and generate lots of sympathy for Islam (there's something admirable about people willing to suffer for their beliefs after all). Either way it would be meaningless at best, possibly even counter-productive.

I agree with you, bans on the hijab and so forth fundamentally miss the point.

The issue is as much about ethnicity as culture, not all that many women wear the hijab anyway, and banning the headscarf is a dumb symbolic gesture that punishes these women unfairly and doesn't actually solve the main problem (mass immigration).

The issue is as much about ethnicity as culture

Yes, but even if it were just about culture, ideology etc., banning its outward manifestations would merely be fighting against symptoms. You can’t ban beliefs or thoughts. And as I wrote above, such a ban probably couldn’t be enforced anyway. If it were enforced though with some sort of punishment for those ignoring it, it would create a lot of “martyrs” and generate lots of sympathy for Islam (there’s something admirable about people willing to suffer for their beliefs after all). Either way it would be meaningless at best, possibly even counter-productive.

And as I wrote elsewhere, seeing many burqas is actually a great redpill. Gabriel is correct, the goal is not to make the Algerian women wear miniskirts (my impression is that many Muslim women have little problem with jeggings, as long as the hair is covered... as if they deliberately missed the point of Islamic dress restrictions), but to make them live elsewhere.

Well, the Koran tells you not to expose too much skin but says nothing about how skin-tight you can go, so I suppose its a matter of following the “letter of the law.”

I’d check this demographic group’s voter turnout before being optimistic. I haven’t seen data about turnout by age. In the first round a lot of the young voted for the far left and few for centrists; the leftist voters may have stayed home, leaving MLP supporters over-represented.

Le Pen didn’t get 44% of under 24s. She got 44% of the (unknown, but probably low) under 24s who bothered to vote and didn’t cast a blank vote in protest against both candidates.

Now you might think that the rest (those who didn’t bother to show up, and those who did bother to show up but only to vote against both Macron and Le Pen) will later grow up to be 44% Le Pen voters, but that’s not how it works. (In fact, it’s highly unlikely that Le Pen already has in the bag 44% of those who cast blank votes. Because they are politically active to the point of bothering to go to the voting booth only to cast blank votes, they will probably vote for someone eventually – and that someone is unlikely to be Macron or Le Pen.) Normies (including middle class normies) often reject politics altogether when they are young, but it doesn’t mean that they will grow up to be Le Pen supporters later – they also reject nationalism. It was taught to them at school that “far right” was a bad, bad thing, and they have no reason to reassess that knowledge. (Except young people already living in enriched environments. But here’s the catch – they are already voting Le Pen.) They will either grow up to vote for normie parties (maybe a normie party repackaged as a maverick outsider like Macron), or if they won’t, they might just as well vote for far left parties. In the first round, the far left was apparently more popular among them than the far right. (Though maybe only because of the diverse.)

Now I also hope that they will eventually vote nationalist (maybe not Le Pen but someone else, later), I even hope that those who voted Macron this time will become redpilled over the next few years, but fate, unfortunately, doesn’t always work based on my feelings and wishes, so we need to work hard to find out what is out there, and devise our strategies based on reality and not wishful thinking.

Reading your comments is depressing. Maybe unrestricted Chinese immigration should be implemented for Western Europe.

Evidently the Europeans, the Western ones, want to die. The question to me is who gets to replace them. That patch of ground will be better off from the standpoint of humanity's progress full of Chinese than Muslims.

I don't know if you are keeping up with this or not. Gorka is in the middle of some sort of Jewish free-for-all fight.

Gorka is a casualty of a Jewish civil warDavid P. Goldman Jews are sadly accustomed to becoming collateral damage in disputes in other peoples’ civil wars. Dr. Sebastian Gorka, a senior White House official, is one of the few gentile victims of a Jewish civil war. Dr. Gorka, long a Fox News commentator on counter-terrorism, will speak at the Jerusalem Post’s annual New York conference in May and at this year’s Zionist Organization of America Gala. But a left-leaning Jewish website, the Forward, has published 39 articles alleging that Gorka has neo-Nazi ties in Hungary …

White House foreign policy adviser Dr. Sebastian Gorka won loud applause from the audience at the annual Jerusalem Post conference in New York on Sunday with a strident defense of his record and the Trump administration’s policies. Gorka, who followed Israeli opposition leader Isaac Herzog and World Jewish Congress president Ronald S. Lauder, was interviewed onstage by the Post‘s editor-in-chief Yaakov Katz.

Katz did not waste time before jumping into the most controversial issues, questioning Gorka about rumors — spread largely by left-wing blogs and websites — of his membership in an anti-semitic Hungarian order...

The obvious is that MLP did not actually do very well. Voter turnout was 75%, and she got only 29% of those votes, with Macron getting about 56% of those votes and the rest going t0 blank ballot protests.

She did certainly improve over her father's 16.8% among people who went to the polls, but it's still a very weak result, fewer than a third of the people who went to the polls voted for her.

I didn’t notice that.

Yes, it’s even worse because of the lower turnout. Given how she has already watered down her message and the situation got much much worse in France (based on my personal experience Paris got visibly enriched 2004-2014), it’s not a lot.

I wonder how much it helped to water down her message. Maybe it didn’t.

Le Pen didn't get 44% of under 24s. She got 44% of the (unknown, but probably low) under 24s who bothered to vote and didn't cast a blank vote in protest against both candidates.

Now you might think that the rest (those who didn't bother to show up, and those who did bother to show up but only to vote against both Macron and Le Pen) will later grow up to be 44% Le Pen voters, but that's not how it works. (In fact, it's highly unlikely that Le Pen already has in the bag 44% of those who cast blank votes. Because they are politically active to the point of bothering to go to the voting booth only to cast blank votes, they will probably vote for someone eventually - and that someone is unlikely to be Macron or Le Pen.) Normies (including middle class normies) often reject politics altogether when they are young, but it doesn't mean that they will grow up to be Le Pen supporters later - they also reject nationalism. It was taught to them at school that "far right" was a bad, bad thing, and they have no reason to reassess that knowledge. (Except young people already living in enriched environments. But here's the catch - they are already voting Le Pen.) They will either grow up to vote for normie parties (maybe a normie party repackaged as a maverick outsider like Macron), or if they won't, they might just as well vote for far left parties. In the first round, the far left was apparently more popular among them than the far right. (Though maybe only because of the diverse.)

Now I also hope that they will eventually vote nationalist (maybe not Le Pen but someone else, later), I even hope that those who voted Macron this time will become redpilled over the next few years, but fate, unfortunately, doesn't always work based on my feelings and wishes, so we need to work hard to find out what is out there, and devise our strategies based on reality and not wishful thinking.

Hmmm.

Reading your comments is depressing. Maybe unrestricted Chinese immigration should be implemented for Western Europe.

Evidently the Europeans, the Western ones, want to die. The question to me is who gets to replace them. That patch of ground will be better off from the standpoint of humanity’s progress full of Chinese than Muslims.

I really think the nationalists need to consider trying to leave and setup a separate community/country somewhere. Surely if Israel could, someone else should have the same right to self-determination?

“British Prime Minister Theresa May has been warned by various political leaders in Britain not to rush to attack Syrian government forces if she wins the general election in June. The Guardian reported that she might hold a vote on military action this summer. If this is the case, it would imply that she wants to press ahead without UN backing.”

UK may turn to anti immigrant party after electing T May whose action will and should lead to more immigrants entering UK. Actually the world should force the immigrants /refugees to relocate to the center of London and the rural areas whose great vaunted IQs lead to repeatedly adopted same destructive polices.

UK citizen should take the responsibility for their barbarism .

France is no different . It has attacked Iraq,has attacked Libya Syria and has put enormous pressure on certain African countries. The citizen of those afflicted countries have more right to a piece of French soil than you Mr Karlin have to a piece of USA or Russia or Europe.

American should learn from the scenario and should not jack up the favorable ratings of Trump every time he throws some bombs somewhere in Yeemen or Syria or Somalia just for fun or to distract attention or get applauds from some faceless pundits

Reading your comments is depressing. Maybe unrestricted Chinese immigration should be implemented for Western Europe.

Evidently the Europeans, the Western ones, want to die. The question to me is who gets to replace them. That patch of ground will be better off from the standpoint of humanity's progress full of Chinese than Muslims.

I really think the nationalists need to consider trying to leave and setup a separate community/country somewhere. Surely if Israel could, someone else should have the same right to self-determination?

Malta has a population of just 430,000. A vote count of 180,000 is more than enough to win an election. All EU citizens can move there freely and can vote in elections after 6 months residence. They then control what is officially a sovereign government and one that can leave the EU and implement whatever laws it likes.

Getting 180,000 people to move to a civilized sunny tax haven and live there for 6 months is certainly a lot easier than whatever the Israelis have had to do.

It came down to the FN versus the rest. This result shows the absolute maximum the FN can expect. It is not progress. The old dying off will no more affect the future demographics than the Brexiters dying off. People change as they age.

Le Pen didn't get 44% of under 24s. She got 44% of the (unknown, but probably low) under 24s who bothered to vote and didn't cast a blank vote in protest against both candidates.

Now you might think that the rest (those who didn't bother to show up, and those who did bother to show up but only to vote against both Macron and Le Pen) will later grow up to be 44% Le Pen voters, but that's not how it works. (In fact, it's highly unlikely that Le Pen already has in the bag 44% of those who cast blank votes. Because they are politically active to the point of bothering to go to the voting booth only to cast blank votes, they will probably vote for someone eventually - and that someone is unlikely to be Macron or Le Pen.) Normies (including middle class normies) often reject politics altogether when they are young, but it doesn't mean that they will grow up to be Le Pen supporters later - they also reject nationalism. It was taught to them at school that "far right" was a bad, bad thing, and they have no reason to reassess that knowledge. (Except young people already living in enriched environments. But here's the catch - they are already voting Le Pen.) They will either grow up to vote for normie parties (maybe a normie party repackaged as a maverick outsider like Macron), or if they won't, they might just as well vote for far left parties. In the first round, the far left was apparently more popular among them than the far right. (Though maybe only because of the diverse.)

Now I also hope that they will eventually vote nationalist (maybe not Le Pen but someone else, later), I even hope that those who voted Macron this time will become redpilled over the next few years, but fate, unfortunately, doesn't always work based on my feelings and wishes, so we need to work hard to find out what is out there, and devise our strategies based on reality and not wishful thinking.

OT

I don’t know if you are keeping up with this or not. Gorka is in the middle of some sort of Jewish free-for-all fight.

Gorka is a casualty of a Jewish civil war
David P. Goldman
Jews are sadly accustomed to becoming collateral damage in disputes in other peoples’ civil wars. Dr. Sebastian Gorka, a senior White House official, is one of the few gentile victims of a Jewish civil war. Dr. Gorka, long a Fox News commentator on counter-terrorism, will speak at the Jerusalem Post’s annual New York conference in May and at this year’s Zionist Organization of America Gala. But a left-leaning Jewish website, the Forward, has published 39 articles alleging that Gorka has neo-Nazi ties in Hungary …

White House foreign policy adviser Dr. Sebastian Gorka won loud applause from the audience at the annual Jerusalem Post conference in New York on Sunday with a strident defense of his record and the Trump administration’s policies.
Gorka, who followed Israeli opposition leader Isaac Herzog and World Jewish Congress president Ronald S. Lauder, was interviewed onstage by the Post‘s editor-in-chief Yaakov Katz.

Katz did not waste time before jumping into the most controversial issues, questioning Gorka about rumors — spread largely by left-wing blogs and websites — of his membership in an anti-semitic Hungarian order…

I really think the nationalists need to consider trying to leave and setup a separate community/country somewhere. Surely if Israel could, someone else should have the same right to self-determination?

You are right:

Malta has a population of just 430,000. A vote count of 180,000 is more than enough to win an election. All EU citizens can move there freely and can vote in elections after 6 months residence. They then control what is officially a sovereign government and one that can leave the EU and implement whatever laws it likes.

Getting 180,000 people to move to a civilized sunny tax haven and live there for 6 months is certainly a lot easier than whatever the Israelis have had to do.

That should be a plan of the Alt-Right in Europe, then. It doesn't even sound that hard to coordinate, and it'll be terribly funny to hold the EU feet to the fire if they complain about this demographic replacement.

Malta has a population of just 430,000. A vote count of 180,000 is more than enough to win an election. All EU citizens can move there freely and can vote in elections after 6 months residence. They then control what is officially a sovereign government and one that can leave the EU and implement whatever laws it likes.

Getting 180,000 people to move to a civilized sunny tax haven and live there for 6 months is certainly a lot easier than whatever the Israelis have had to do.

That should be a plan of the Alt-Right in Europe, then. It doesn’t even sound that hard to coordinate, and it’ll be terribly funny to hold the EU feet to the fire if they complain about this demographic replacement.

France is a lost cause(Germany and Sweden too). Perhaps their ultimate destruction and subjugation by Muslims and African migrants will be a lesson for others not to embark on the same insane policies. In a way, their civilizational collapse will be instructive. Sad but the French seems dead set on national suicide. Hopefully we East Asians are ‘ethnocentric’ enough to avoid such a destiny.

Yes, it's even worse because of the lower turnout. Given how she has already watered down her message and the situation got much much worse in France (based on my personal experience Paris got visibly enriched 2004-2014), it's not a lot.

I wonder how much it helped to water down her message. Maybe it didn't.

I’m wondering the same thing. Throws Dad out of the party and still goes down two to one. Maybe the decision of Marion Marechal Le Pen to “leave politics” is based on similar considerations.

At the age of 15, Emmanuel Macron had a sexual relation with his drama teacher, who was 23 years older, moved in with her, and then married her 15 years later. Marine Le Pen inherited the presidency of her party from her father – she first of all cleaned it up, and then excluded him from it. In psychoanalytical terms, Macron married his mother, and Le Pen killed her father. [Emphasis mine.]

The better schools must be less diverse, so young FN voters are probably working class and lower middle class kids. If they’re SWPLs’ and yuppies’ kids though, big changes are coming.

I'm afraid the former is right.
The French abroad voted 89% for Macron. They experience some of the least diversity of all.

Young people in the West generally don't want social conservatism, and they don't want neoliberal economics. In that respect, Le Pen is much closer to their ideal profile than Trump.

Another interesting fact: More women (37%) than men (33%) supporter Le Pen - this is an inversion of the usual pattern for nationalists, including wrt Trump.

I suspect this is more due to Le Pen being economically left than being a woman. Women tend to vote more left, and Macron is a radical on economics by French standards,

“Another interesting fact: More women (37%) than men (33%) supporter Le Pen – this is an inversion of the usual pattern for nationalists, including wrt Trump.”

Probably there is something wrong with your poll, another poll shows that more men than women voted for Le Pen. This, combined with the higher male support in the first round of the elections, combined with the higher male support in previous elections, combined with the fact that police and military voted overwhelmingly for Le Pen, makes the probability for more women voting for Le Pen highly unlikely.